OT - Even CONSERVATIVE experts say Bush broke law

Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The
Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his
constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he
will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as
lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in
the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part
considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of
wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally
unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I
can do anything I want - I don't need to consult any other branches - that
is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under
oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties
for the ages. It would set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded
gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we're going to be intellectually
honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was
referring to when impeachment was discussed.

(Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40)

Here is the link to the show that got lost in my post:

[url]http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/19.php[/url]

Art, 12/21/2005, 8:44:55 AM,
<r%cqf.7863$3Z.4844@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable
> Offense[/color]

It's been done before.
------------------------

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to
approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy
Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens
but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official --
to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find
information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to
use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared
sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June
and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was
required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence
purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they
said it justified extraordinary police powers.

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret
searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is
classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."

--
Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently - and for the
very same reason.

One obvious difference is the Clinton and Carter orders were public and not
classified top secret and therefore subject to challenge.


"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eb8zis78tx7v001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Art, 12/21/2005, 8:44:55 AM,
> <r%cqf.7863$3Z.4844@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable
>> Offense[/color]
>
> It's been done before.
> ------------------------
>
> Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
> searches without court approval
>
> Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to
> approve physical searches, without a court order"
>
> WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy
> Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens
> but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official --
> to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find
> information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to
> use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared
> sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
>
> Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
> believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
> searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
>
> Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June
> and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
>
> Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was
> required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence
> purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they
> said it justified extraordinary police powers.
>
> Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret
> searches by U.S. authorities.
>
> "The number of such secret searches conducted each year is
> classified..."
>
> Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General
> is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
> intelligence information without a court order."
>
> --
> Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently - and for the
> very same reason.[/color]

Do the democrats today ever get anything right in there efforts to discredit
the President during time of war? The current flap is politics, pure and
simple, to rile up the uniformed. The President did not listen in on
anyone, a government agency did. The President acted on advice from the
Attorney General and lawyers in the justice department that cited several
laws, including actions by past administration, that allows the government
to listen in on conversations between foreign sources and those within the
county. A quick web search will reveal such is the case, as an exception
the wiretap law passed way back in the seventies. Further authorization to
spy on terrorists was granted to the President by laws passed by the
Congress in 1998 and 2003. The only law that seems to have been broken here
was the leaking to the press, in violation of the whistle blower law, that
foreign intelligence listening was being done by the NSA. Get over it.

mike hunt


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r%cqf.7863$3Z.4844@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
> Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The
> Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his
> constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he
> will), Congress should consider impeaching him.
>[/color]

Art wrote:[color=blue]
> One obvious difference is the Clinton and Carter orders were public and not
> classified top secret and therefore subject to challenge.[/color]

Precisely. If they pass the Patriot Act today, we can all rest assured
that Capitol Hill is full of a bunch of liars.

In article <r%cqf.7863$3Z.4844@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Conservative Scholars Argue Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense
> Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The
> Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his
> constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he
> will), Congress should consider impeaching him.
>
> QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as
> lying about having sex with an intern?
>
> BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in
> the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part
> considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of
> wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally
> unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I
> can do anything I want - I don't need to consult any other branches - that
> is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under
> oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties
> for the ages. It would set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded
> gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
>
> NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we're going to be intellectually
> honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was
> referring to when impeachment was discussed.
>
> (Listen to The Diane Rehm show here. The segment above begins at 33:40)[/color]

we know the democrats want to get even for the clintoon impeachment and
embarassing situation he got himself into, but this ain't gonna work,
there is no way, no way in hell Bush will be impeached for defending the
U.S. These two must be private mouth piece contractors for the DNC.
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi

Learning Richard, 12/21/2005, 10:27:56 AM,
<1135178876.068955.153670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> we can all rest
> assured that Capitol Hill is full of a bunch of liars.[/color]

That goes without saying.

--
Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently - and for the
very same reason.